Less Deadly Crits

[Morgenstern]

Why not use Stress damage for "defeat =/= death"?  Although maybe you'd have to make a more linear track for Stress the same way Vitality has linear decrease.

Because honestly I don't want it to be an exotic subsystem. I want it to be the central contract: "You, hero, ARE NOT going to die - but you ARE going to get your ass handed to you if your plan and execution are insufficient to the task at hand." New deal, not the same as the old deal.

I don't even see a real need for "oh, if its a special charater on the third sunday (dramatic scene) you might die." NO. You're not going to die (unless maybe, maaaaybe you volunteer for it). But I'm also not writing adventures where the default assumption is you win, either. Earn your happy ending. No more freebies. That is how I see getting some drama back into the process - remove the presumption of success. Hell, some scenarios might even come down to 'come back later when you've level'd up a little'.

[Morgenstern]

I'm still looking at the 'crit removes all vitality' idea. That's disproportionately good against villians, but its still kinda sweet.

Crits have two facets that both need to be looked at - trigger, and effect. The trigger part has issues - it makes the GM maybe a little too actively involved. The trigger seems to work ok for players, but even they might like to be able to do crits more often in some fashion. Random chance of crit, action dice to assure one, perhaps. That way a GM not intent on getting a crit can roll dice to see if one of those luck of the draw bits of misfortune comes crashing down on players.

The effect... I see the appeal of one shotting bad guys,but maybe that should just stick to one-shotting stadards. Give the big names of evil some curtesy too. Now I do see the appeal of the occasional perfect sniper shot, so maybe class abilities or feats or something can re-enable the one-hit-kill on the Big Bad, but I think it needs to be removed from the base environment. I think in general crits need to do something that ramps up the tension, not eliminate it.

More pondering...

[Valentina]

Very tired. Have to be brief.
Yes. Failure > Death. Very, very true. The difference between a memorable Good Death and Bitter Failure is victory.

SilvercatMoonpaw: while I like badass, "Lunatic Machismo" or something similar is probably hitting the nail on the head.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Well what I was thinking was that maybe something like "crits and/or hits after Vitality is gone go to Stress".  So so long as you have Vitality you feel like you can fight on, but if you loose it all you know you're close to being beaten and anything further is scaring you out of your wits.

Actually that suggests something interesting: crits would always be about bypassing something to go to Wounds.  Either Vitality when you have it or Stress when you don't.  So it's no longer the situation that once you wear down Vitality you don't needs crits: without them you can only scare off an opponent.

[Mister Andersen]

What it sounds like Scott is talking about is essentially mainstreaming Cheating Death from a 1 off special event to the default option instead of getting permaganked.

So try this on for size.

We essentially grab the Revolving Door quality, but we make it somethign that a player might actually be able to reasonably afford. If you get ganked and there's someone still standing then it's gonna cost you all the Rep you would have earned during the adventure to wind up only mostly dead. If it's a TPK or you get ganked in a dramatic scene then it's rep from the adventure gone + Cheating Death time.

[Morgenstern]

I'll probably pick this up in the other thread but really, I'm serious. Death OFF THE TABLE. Not on alternating Tuesdays, and not because a named villian is on-set complete with evil chanting.

The ONLY way you can die (in this paradigm) is some sort of player-initiated condition where you literally bet your life on something. A player could also commit to a heroic exit scene (some days you really just want to pull a Boromir and have your tale end in a frikin' MOUNTAIN of enemy corpses) - trade your immortality for some sort of meaty buff and let it all hang out till the end of the scene. I'm ok if players want to kill themselves .

Now with that comes the heavy responsiblity that you are genuinely able to fail, that you might have bit off a level inappropriate encounter that's gonna roll your rumps, that the dragon may eat the princess about 8 seconds after you are pounded to a withdrawing pulp, that the evil wizard might actually complete his LITERALLY world-altering ritual (and won't that be an interesting campaign?). The stakes don't have to get lower. They can get even higher and the GM gets to cackle manically that the players actually have to live with the consequences .

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Hm, throwing yourself in the path of whatever is happening so you can die but win?

Cool.

[Morgenstern]

Hm, throwing yourself in the path of whatever is happening so you can die but win?

Cool.

Well, if this isn't extended to maguffin characters a night at the gaming table might come where after the party has guarded the likable boy-prince for a few weeks (real time) you get into a spot where party defeat = dead prince, and a player (lets say a soldier, 'cause thats how I roll) looks at the bridge you've just crossed, the slavering hordes in hot pursuit and streaming into the flanks to take the alternate slower route also (really, the presure is on here - the players will live, but the prince is pretty much done for) and anounces "Go on. Get him to safety. I got this." And then last stands like a big damn hero is supposed to. Big buff, big body count, critical lead time bought in blood, and giant shit-eating grin for months, even after rolling up a new charater. And don't you dare cheapen it with a resurection spell.

Dying's got a place in this paradigm, but you want it to taste sweet, not bitter.

[Morgenstern]

What it sounds like Scott is talking about is essentially mainstreaming Cheating Death from a 1 off special event to the default option instead of getting permaganked.

yup. the rally point scenario (other thread) is pretty much the automatic cheat death. Only with less book keeping .

So try this on for size.

We essentially grab the Revolving Door quality, but we make it somethign that a player might actually be able to reasonably afford. If you get ganked and there's someone still standing then it's gonna cost you all the Rep you would have earned during the adventure to wind up only mostly dead. If it's a TPK or you get ganked in a dramatic scene then it's rep from the adventure gone + Cheating Death time.

I'd flip it over - getting defeated reduces the potential rep rewards from the current adventure rather than digging into previous stockpiles. It's eminently logical that if you get spanked by the dragon, the princess gets eaten, and you regroup and blow up the nasty lizard on your second try, you just don't quite have the rosey-scent of success that a first go victory would have gcarried... and less rep as a result.

[Desertpuma]

As much as I don't aim to bring up his name, John Wick made some discussion about this. That the story has to matter more than the game mechanic.

Players do not often choose to fail because it will make things more interesting whether that is story or combat. They would rather, sometimes absolutely convincingly, win with little resistance. So you have to remind them periodically that there are worse things than death such as publically humiliating them, stripping their Prizes or Holdings by a Lord or King, have them become the victims of several unforeseen consequences. So they managed to defeat the big combat bad but what if he was a distraction for the real threat. Sure they gain some XP for killing him but it pales compared to what they could have gotten if they'd done the correct thing. Unfortunately, our society of give it to me without me working for it and in gaming parlance, as Scotty noted, quickly respawning once killed, have become to prevalent. In 1st Ed AD&D when I played, if you died, you started back at Level 1 no matter the levels of the rest of the party.

I'll mention this in the other thread too because I think it is somewhat worthy of saying. I only one-shot players if they deserve it or it is near the end of the big fight. I also make it a point only add an AD to the damage in those situations if the NPC would do it. Is he more interested in getting away or give the PC a headstone? ... I go to Random.org and print out several columns of random numbers 1-20 and then use that for combat, passive skill checks, or anything else that a D20 would be used for on the whole. I roll damage and ADs myself but it keeps the randomness of it fresh.

"I believe man is truly at his finest hour when he lies exhausted on the field of battle -- victorious." -- Vince Lombardi

[Sletchman]

I'll probably pick this up in the other thread but really, I'm serious. Death OFF THE TABLE. Not on alternating Tuesdays, and not because a named villian is on-set complete with evil chanting.

The ONLY way you can die (in this paradigm) is some sort of player-initiated condition where you literally bet your life on something. A player could also commit to a heroic exit scene (some days you really just want to pull a Boromir and have your tale end in a frikin' MOUNTAIN of enemy corpses) - trade your immortality for some sort of meaty buff and let it all hang out till the end of the scene. I'm ok if players want to kill themselves .

Now with that comes the heavy responsiblity that you are genuinely able to fail, that you might have bit off a level inappropriate encounter that's gonna roll your rumps, that the dragon may eat the princess about 8 seconds after you are pounded to a withdrawing pulp, that the evil wizard might actually complete his LITERALLY world-altering ritual (and won't that be an interesting campaign?). The stakes don't have to get lower. They can get even higher and the GM gets to cackle manically that the players actually have to live with the consequences .

I am so totally behind this idea.  My main gaming group discussed it a bit last night at my Fallout session, and they too agree with the central theme of the idea - that a lame death due to a lucky hit sucks.  Losing a character you've played with months (or longer) because of something ignoble is seldom cool, especially since we largely like to play big damn heroes.  Not to mention that it is a really common trope in the sort of storytelling that often inspires gamers - the heroes taste bitter defeat, and regroup somewhere to fight again (Burn Notice had it once or twice with The Carlito, and many a fantasy character has been nursed back from the brink of death by friendly locals).

[Mister Andersen]

The simplest answer is that PCs can't suffer critical hits. Critically injured, yes, but NPCs gotta grind them down 0 before the failure effect kicks in.

[Valentina]

I had epiphany.
I was thinking about Ninja Scroll. About the scenes after Jubei shares a first and last kiss with Kagero.
And how, mechanically, I've never gotten that work.
The RAMPAGE OF VENGEANCE.
The problem tends to be twofold. One is the adding, or at least exchange of abilities suitable for the rampage. The other is the changing of the PC tactics -they don't, and when the tabi's on the other foot I don't either.
Nevermind being less deadly. Suddenly I get, and like, the idea of the PC's life becoming currency for temporarily spiked lethality in response to a plot event.
That's missing. More AD just doesn't do it; I played a pretty heavily combat-capable character for years in LSpy, and what I did was mostly single-target spikes of damage interspersed with a little grenade-play. No number of extra AD made me much better at what I already did (high accuracy, check), and there was no way to say,
"I'm mad as HELL, I want 10 levels of GRUNT to fix this bastard and everyone in his zip code".
Or even conversely everyone thinks your Grunt is a moron, time to show them what military persistence (and sleep resistance) and a library card can actually discover. You might not be an academic, but you do understand doggedly hard work.

The PC tactics issue is a little more sticky, but I think it's self-resolving. Make of a wo/man a Raptor when they most want it, they'll dive in blade-first and start improving up some antagonist anatomy.

...
Reading the various contributions again it seems I'm late to the party.
Well, at least I'm here!  

Edit: Oh yeah: gear. This is probably a matter of just practice. Many things about SC are.
But, also gear without ability support doesn't amount to much. I could've just scooped up a SAW somewhere and got busy, but Alpha Strike makes everything better when you want to get your Strafe on.

[Morgenstern]

One of my problems has been that as a GM I instinctively shy away from offing players. Players, being the lovely gamist bastards they so often are catch on to this and deliberately create situations where its victory-or-death, so I have to give them victory if I want to avoid (their) death. I'm actually kinda tired of looking out for them . So maybe I can get a clean distinction where I won't shove them off a bridge over a bottomless crevase (without aranging for a roc to be swooping past at about that time), but if they jump, their problem, not mine.

'You bet your life' should be putting pretty big stakes on the table. When I say "meaty buff" activated by willingly surrendering your immortality until the end of the scene, off the cuff I'd say "bonus action die at the start of the round, EVERY round until the scene is over (or you're dead)." I think you could make a pretty good Boromir out of that . Something BIG. More importantly, something spectacular. "re-roll every single die, and keep the one you want" Something crazy random so the battle-computer players can't just calculate their odds of pulling it out and throw the switch because it's a safe bet. It should be the most unsafe bet imaginable. I don't want to have to make demise a requirement at the end.

Level/ability swapping is an intriguing tool. Hard as hell to code, but I can see the payoff. Will ponder.

[Morgenstern]

Ok, looking at the last stand scenario and the rampage of vengeance (great examples Valentina, BTW), I keep seeing what tends to be a solo action. I like solo action well enough for storytelling purposes, but I hate making most of a table full of buddies wait while one guy holds the spotlight. Somehow I'd like to see all the players feel like they've got a hand in. Something whacky like each of them rolls a die and the players who is on the tear gets to pick one and add it as a bonus to one of his rolls, and picks a second and adds it to somethign else, doing this every round, so the other players are all contributing, all a little involved in the war story that comes out the other end. dice are good, but an even more personal/specific contribution might help - being able to lend the big damn hero (I've gotta check if that's been used, 'cause I want to name the overall campaign quality that ) something - one of your skill bonuses, one of your feats, something that turns them into a composite superbadass only possible because of the team as a whole. Might not be 10 levels of grunt, but it'll make some bloody hash.